Why you should NEVER release any fish

[ewurm]

A huge part of the overall picture comes down to Magagement. Fish and Wildlife MANAGEMENT. Most of the laws and rules are in place for good reason. Its up to the state division of fish and wildlife to decide the MANAGEMENT of the fish and wildlife. It comes down to the state knowing what they are doing when they are introducing new fish to new waterways. They MANAGE the fish in those waterways.

I completely agree. Some of the laws are dumb, most are well thought out. Before you dump that fish in a lake, you should think a little more.

 

[Skipjack]

I have to also agree that Local DNR's are guilty of crimes against wildlife. Here in Ohio we have a disjunct population of the Tonguetied minnow, a state endangered fish. It is so far disjunct from other populations of Tonguetied minnows that it is likely that if the time, and money were invested, that it would be found to be a distinct species. Nonetheless, the ODNR continues to stock brown trout in the only drainage that holds a decent population of this fish. BROWN TROUT! A European native.
Nobody, not the DNR, not you, not me have the right to play god, or mother nature, whatever your conviction.

 

[ewurm]

I would have to agree there too. While trout are desireable to many anglers, and a source of economic income, they are not native to many areas where they are stocked. Sometimes economics is more powerful than ecologics.

 

[meepster]

also, releasing fish into the wild is not ok because there are types of fungus that attack aquarium fish that are not found in the wild.

In Massachusetts, those fungi attack our local amphibian species too and they are on the decline.

 

[mjmc]

Sometimes economics is more powerful than ecologics.

This is a fundamental truth a lot of people are ignoring. If not for these non-native Brown trout (and other animals that are stocked), there would be less money for DNR. Less money for DNR means less money for land aquisition, wildlife officers, wildlife studies, general conservation. The "money invested" skipjack speaks of, where is that to come from? Would you sacrifice the purchase of a few acres in order to ID a new subspecies, one that in a hundred-year flood will be living with the general population and cease to exist? With the perpetual shrinking budget DNR's across the country have to deal with, each dollar is more important than ever. To be an idealist is great, but reality (as the case here) tends to open your eyes.

A lot of people have spoken of the diseases that can affect native populations. If you lived near a stream or river or pond growing up, didn't you catch animals? In my neighborhood, we would bike to bodies of water and try and catch whatever we could in our nets. We kept darters, madtoms, bluegill, sunfish, minnows, turtles, snakes (man, would those northern water snakes chew on you or what!?) and anything else small we could fit in an aquarium. After observing them, learning about them, seeing what they would eat, and generally developing an appreciation for them we would release them to free up room for something else. How many thousands, if not millions, of kids have done this in the past and are doing it now? Our wildlife populations are doing fine. Disease has not ravaged the bluegill population here in Ohio. The snapping turtle I fed guppies to has not decimated the snapping turtle population. If anything, I see more snapping turtles today than I remember as a kid. Based on some of the views here, there should be no animals left in the wild. They should have all been wiped out by disease. I understand your intentions, but if we had it your way, there would be little of what I had done as a kid. I would have had to kill each animal I caught. And frankly, you will not get a ten year old boy to kill a 2 inch snapping turtle he's kept for a pet for a year. He will bike to a pond and release it, regardless of what law he has broken. How do you stop that?

 

[teleost]

This is a fundamental truth a lot of people are ignoring. If not for these non-native Brown trout (and other animals that are stocked), there would be less money for DNR. Less money for DNR means less money for land aquisition, wildlife officers, wildlife studies, general conservation. The "money invested" skipjack speaks of, where is that to come from? Would you sacrifice the purchase of a few acres in order to ID a new subspecies, one that in a hundred-year flood will be living with the general population and cease to exist? With the perpetual shrinking budget DNR's across the country have to deal with, each dollar is more important than ever. To be an idealist is great, but reality (as the case here) tends to open your eyes.

There might be less money but they could also shed the cost of raising the fish (facilities and food), the trucks to move the fish from water to water, the gas to fuel the trucks and so on. Land acquisition ain't all it's cracked up to be. After all any land they buy they'll simply stock a bunch of fish that don't belong in any case. The DNR doesn't spend a dime to write up a new species. I interpret Skipjacks point along the lines of: We spend money to stock a non native that will simply eat/compete with a state endangered fish. When this fish disappears it's all over forever. I don't think it's idealism to ask the state to not spend money to destroy genetic diversity. After all it's less effort (money) to just let the wild fish be wild.

A lot of people have spoken of the diseases that can affect native populations. If you lived near a stream or river or pond growing up, didn't you catch animals? In my neighborhood, we would bike to bodies of water and try and catch whatever we could in our nets. We kept darters, madtoms, bluegill, sunfish, minnows, turtles, snakes (man, would those northern water snakes chew on you or what!?) and anything else small we could fit in an aquarium. After observing them, learning about them, seeing what they would eat, and generally developing an appreciation for them we would release them to free up room for something else. How many thousands, if not millions, of kids have done this in the past and are doing it now? Our wildlife populations are doing fine. Disease has not ravaged the bluegill population here in Ohio. The snapping turtle I fed guppies to has not decimated the snapping turtle population. If anything, I see more snapping turtles today than I remember as a kid. Based on some of the views here, there should be no animals left in the wild. They should have all been wiped out by disease. I understand your intentions, but if we had it your way, there would be little of what I had done as a kid. I would have had to kill each animal I caught. And frankly, you will not get a ten year old boy to kill a 2 inch snapping turtle he's kept for a pet for a year. He will bike to a pond and release it, regardless of what law he has broken. How do you stop that?

I think you're overstating the opinions here about disease potential. If you want to look at a real nasty one, look at VHS. Any disease you release into the wild has the potential VHS has if you find the right watershed and host.
I took all kinds of stuff as a kid but my Father would never let me release it since he knew better. All the creatures I kept for life....There would be no other way under the direction of my father. Undoubtedly kids do dumb things (like illegally release fish/animals). Just because others break the law doesn't mean you should. This is what can be called "lowest common denominator" approach to society and I find it sad. As aquarist and responsible aquarist providing information for the general audience, we must be better than the lowest common denominator and treat the fish in our homes as well as the fishes that swim wild with the utmost respect.

 

[ewurm]

And frankly, you will not get a ten year old boy to kill a 2 inch snapping turtle he's kept for a pet for a year. He will bike to a pond and release it, regardless of what law he has broken. How do you stop that?

Education.

 

[mjmc]

There might be less money but they could also shed the cost of raising the fish (facilities and food), the trucks to move the fish from water to water, the gas to fuel the trucks and so on. Land acquisition ain't all it's cracked up to be. After all any land they buy they'll simply stock a bunch of fish that don't belong in any case. The DNR doesn't spend a dime to write up a new species. I interpret Skipjacks point along the lines of: We spend money to stock a non native that will simply eat/compete with a state endangered fish. When this fish disappears it's all over forever. I don't think it's idealism to ask the state to not spend money to destroy genetic diversity. After all it's less effort (money) to just let the wild fish be wild.

I think you’re missing the basic economics of this situation. For every dollar DNR spends on raising and transporting non-native animals for stocking purposes, the return is multiplied. I don’t know the exact number, but it is significant. The money saved on expenditures would be overshadowed by the loss of revenue.

I have to disagree with you about land not being “all it’s cracked up to be.” Land is a finite resource. With the ever increasing rate of suburban sprawl, it will continue to increase in value. One day we will be as crowded as India or China. What will land prices be like then? We cannot afford to be so narrow-minded and not look to the future. Also, DNR does not stock the vast majority of water it owns.

I think you're overstating the opinions here about disease potential. If you want to look at a real nasty one, look at VHS. Any disease you release into the wild has the potential VHS has if you find the right watershed and host.

I took all kinds of stuff as a kid but my Father would never let me release it since he knew better. All the creatures I kept for life....There would be no other way under the direction of my father. Undoubtedly kids do dumb things (like illegally release fish/animals). Just because others break the law doesn't mean you should. This is what can be called "lowest common denominator" approach to society and I find it sad. As aquarist and responsible aquarist providing information for the general audience, we must be better than the lowest common denominator and treat the fish in our homes as well as the fishes that swim wild with the utmost respect.

You completely missed my point. My point was not that it’s okay to do this because others are. My point was that wildlife should have taken a huge hit because of it. And that’s simply not the case.

I agree with your point about VHS. It is scary. However, fish are surviving. Lots of them. These fish will pass on their genes to their offspring. VHS will cease to be a problem.

I find it hard to believe you kept “all kinds of stuff” for life. Bluegills live 5 or 6 years. LMB two or three times that. Snakes and turtles live for many decades. In captivity, they live even longer than in their natural environment. Either you have a house full of native animals, are extremely old, killed many animals, or were exaggerating to make a point. Which is it?

 

[mjmc]

Education.

How do you propose to educate these ignorant children? The only way I can see is to catch them while they are in kindergarten. Where will we get enough DNR employees to conduct these speaking arrangements?

A consequence of reaching them: children growing up do not develop an appreciation for wildlife. If you have a wildlife officer lecture each student to never take an animal from the wild unless he or she can keep it for life, kids will likely say oh yeah, no problem. Snapping turtles can live over fifty years! What 6 or seven year old is prepared for that kind of commitment? I know as a kid my mom shouldered most of the caring responsibilities for our pets. Whether it was a dog or a snake, she made sure it was cared for. She was the one buying the food, ensuring its cage was cleaned (by telling me to do it). I (and most kids) got bored quickly. The puppy grows into a dog and the novelty wears off. Snakes and tarantulas become static. The animals I purchased would be traded at reptile shows after learning much about them. Wild caught animals would be released. Geez, I’ve rambled. My point, you will still wind up with unwanted animals in kids’ possession. What then?

 

[teleost]

I think you’re missing the basic economics of this situation. For every dollar DNR spends on raising and transporting non-native animals for stocking purposes, the return is multiplied. I don’t know the exact number, but it is significant. The money saved on expenditures would be overshadowed by the loss of revenue.

You're suggesting that people will simply no longer buy a fishing license for their home state if the state doesn't stock non native fish in natural waters. I'm sorry to be so rude but this seems laughable to me. I'm not sure how you can quantify the return on investment since states don't run a pay as you go system on license fees. Either you fish a couple of times in the state and pay the annual fee or fish several hundred times a year and guess what, pay the same price....Naturally most people fall in between these numbers and pay full tilt for the annual.

I have to disagree with you about land not being “all it’s cracked up to be.” Land is a finite resource. With the ever increasing rate of suburban sprawl, it will continue to increase in value. One day we will be as crowded as India or China. What will land prices be like then? We cannot afford to be so narrow-minded and not look to the future. Also, DNR does not stock the vast majority of water it owns.

I'll not deny land is a finite resource but I'll take issue with the DNR not stocking the vast majority of what they own. This most certainly not the case in my home state. I can't think of a single water thats not been corrupted by their idea of what makes a good lake. Up front they participate in heavy handed management. This allows them to have self sustaining populations of fishes and only restock when absolutely necessary (year class failures/stunting and non natives that can't naturally reproduce).

I can only speak for my area but I don't see much activity in the DNR making land purchases. I do see county governments and the federal government buying land not to mention the latest land buy was a cooperative with private citizens and businesses making up the majority of a good (IMO) land buy.

You completely missed my point. My point was not that it’s okay to do this because others are. My point was that wildlife should have taken a huge hit because of it. And that’s simply not the case.

I understand(stood) your point but I see this as dodging the bullet not necessarily that a single introduction will always cause a catastrophe. I was backhanded in that statement and should have stated my opinion in another way. I'm sorry for the insulting way I stated that.

I agree with your point about VHS. It is scary. However, fish are surviving. Lots of them. These fish will pass on their genes to their offspring. VHS will cease to be a problem.

In time you're right but we've yest to see how VHS effects the vast majority of fishes. Who knows what it will do to the isolated population of the tonguetied minnow discussed previously. If it effects this fish in particular compared to others in the system, you might expect this fish to have a slow com back at best if not just fade away into the ecological trash heap.

I find it hard to believe you kept “all kinds of stuff” for life. Bluegills live 5 or 6 years. LMB two or three times that. Snakes and turtles live for many decades. In captivity, they live even longer than in their natural environment. Either you have a house full of native animals, are extremely old, killed many animals, or were exaggerating to make a point. Which is it?

A little of both but no need to exaggerate....I kept insects as pets. In some cases I had to overwinter them and "hatch" them the following season (often out of season not to the benefit of the creature). I never kept turtles (again my Father knew better and would not stand to see this kind of irresponsible collection). I kept snakes (until death) and yes I killed bass. Not proud of that but I learned from these mistakes. I then focused on smaller native sunfishes and "minnows". I never released a single animal and I have no need to fib you. I know the anonymity of the internet makes many tall tales but I can assure you our household understood the impact of release from genetic impact as well as disease potential. For the record all new animals had to pass the careful eye of my Father and the house was not full of critters. Many of day I had to go back to the place I found the critter of the day and release it (to the original location the very same day I found it).

What I find most troubling with this conversation is the fact that I get the impression that you want to make excuses for illegal behavior and/or the fact that impact is non existent. I might be off and please correct me if I'm wrong but It's just so easy to inform people that might intend to release a captive animal into the wild (or transport an animal) that it's not only illegal but irresponsible due to the many impacts that can occur to wild populations.